But no, I don't think that holding what's still a mainstream opinion about how marriage should be defined (and/or a strong opinion that such matters should be determined legislatively rather than by the courts) are among them.
It would be very interesting to hear from someone who claims to support same-sex marriage in principle but to have voted for Proposition 8 strictly on procedural grounds. Sounds pretty convoluted to me, but you're more familiar with such manifestations of libertarian doublethink than I am.
I think it's important to keep in mind how exceptional Proposition 8 was among same-sex marriage bans even for its time. It was the only one that sought to invalidate existing marriages. (They were ultimately grandfathered in, but that was not a provision of the law and thousands of couples spent nearly a year in legal limbo before that was sorted out in the courts.) This gave it an air of spitefulness that other measures lacked--an air which was only enhanced by the vile negative campaigning of the pro side, whose ads equated homosexuals with child molesters. It was like Anita Bryant had never left the political stage. The straight people defending Eich (no offence) seem largely to have forgotten about this, but we haven't. (The tv spots are preserved on youtube, btw, in case you need your own memory refreshed.)
This is what Eich supported with his donation. He didn't just hold the opinion that same-sex marriage was undesirable, he aided a campaign that used scare tactics and outright lies to strip his fellow citizens of their legal protections and deny their extension to others. This is what he was asked to disavow, and he wouldn't.
To be honest, I was on the fence about the whole affair until I read Eich's CNET interview. I found the disconnect there gobsmacking. He says saw in his friends' eyes the pain he'd caused them but refused to say whether, given the chance, he'd inflict that same pain again, which makes his apology for "causing" it sound pretty damn insincere. It reminded me of nothing so much as a disciplinarian saying, "I'm sorry I had to hit you." (The implication being "But I had every right to, since you deserved it, and I'll do it again if I feel like it.") This is on top of the basic disconnect of saying that he's been as "inclusive" of his LGBT staff as anyone while at the same time voting away their right to equal treatment--as if what happens in the misty realm of politics has no concrete impact on people's actual lives.
At that point, I thought, "Who would want to work for this kind of psycho? What company would want him to be their public face?" He was technically right that he didn't owe anyone an explanation for his political activity outside of work, but it hardly shows good faith when you're trying to reassure someone you've injured in the past and who is justifiably worried you'll do it again. This is exactly what Mark Surman was getting at when he wrote, "Brendan didn’t need to change his mind on Proposition 8 to get out of the crisis of the past week. He simply needed to project and communicate empathy. His failure to do so proved to be his fatal flaw as CEO."
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
momijizukamori
no subject
Date: 2014-04-29 03:33 pm (UTC)It would be very interesting to hear from someone who claims to support same-sex marriage in principle but to have voted for Proposition 8 strictly on procedural grounds. Sounds pretty convoluted to me, but you're more familiar with such manifestations of libertarian doublethink than I am.
I think it's important to keep in mind how exceptional Proposition 8 was among same-sex marriage bans even for its time. It was the only one that sought to invalidate existing marriages. (They were ultimately grandfathered in, but that was not a provision of the law and thousands of couples spent nearly a year in legal limbo before that was sorted out in the courts.) This gave it an air of spitefulness that other measures lacked--an air which was only enhanced by the vile negative campaigning of the pro side, whose ads equated homosexuals with child molesters. It was like Anita Bryant had never left the political stage. The straight people defending Eich (no offence) seem largely to have forgotten about this, but we haven't. (The tv spots are preserved on youtube, btw, in case you need your own memory refreshed.)
This is what Eich supported with his donation. He didn't just hold the opinion that same-sex marriage was undesirable, he aided a campaign that used scare tactics and outright lies to strip his fellow citizens of their legal protections and deny their extension to others. This is what he was asked to disavow, and he wouldn't.
To be honest, I was on the fence about the whole affair until I read Eich's CNET interview. I found the disconnect there gobsmacking. He says saw in his friends' eyes the pain he'd caused them but refused to say whether, given the chance, he'd inflict that same pain again, which makes his apology for "causing" it sound pretty damn insincere. It reminded me of nothing so much as a disciplinarian saying, "I'm sorry I had to hit you." (The implication being "But I had every right to, since you deserved it, and I'll do it again if I feel like it.") This is on top of the basic disconnect of saying that he's been as "inclusive" of his LGBT staff as anyone while at the same time voting away their right to equal treatment--as if what happens in the misty realm of politics has no concrete impact on people's actual lives.
At that point, I thought, "Who would want to work for this kind of psycho? What company would want him to be their public face?" He was technically right that he didn't owe anyone an explanation for his political activity outside of work, but it hardly shows good faith when you're trying to reassure someone you've injured in the past and who is justifiably worried you'll do it again. This is exactly what Mark Surman was getting at when he wrote, "Brendan didn’t need to change his mind on Proposition 8 to get out of the crisis of the past week. He simply needed to project and communicate empathy. His failure to do so proved to be his fatal flaw as CEO."